Spinoza

Subject: Re: Spinoza Tue May 31, 2016 1:07 pm

Gellner wrote:: "A good deal of metaphysics, and certain kinds of ethics, may be seen as instances of the flight from precariousness. A typical form this ambition assumes is that of a pursuit of a Highest Good which includes among its merits that of not being liable to let you down. Spinoza is a good example of this: he informs us that he resolved to look for a Highest Good which, unlike lesser Goods, could not prove even partly an evil in disguise on attainment. The doubt that whatever he found might still let him down he silenced with the argument, reminiscent of the ontological proof, that it could not prove deceptive and precarious, being defined as just that which has no such snags.

The commonest advice for exorcizing precariousness is the ethics of recognizing necessity. Such ethics shamelessly turn upside down the normal meaning of ‘freedom’ which is ‘ignorance of necessity’, if it is to be defined in terms of necessity at all, and advise us to like whatever is bound to happen so to speak ex officio, because it is bound to happen. If we succeed in adjusting our desires and values in such a manner, the future can indeed hold no terrors for us. Such stoicism may be genuine in the sense of honestly restricting itself to recommending acceptance of whatever happens, without prejudging at all what it is that will happen. One can hardly imagine this really being practised, though one cannot but feel admiration for those who try. Yet it can also come to include predictions about the future more specific than the initial and modest ‘what will happen, will happen’ but claiming similar certainty. This is the case of those who elude precariousness by recognizing a necessity which is both specific and congenial to them (by some lucky coincidence). Both in the modest and genuine, and in the bogus and expanded, form, these theories are open to the criticism that games in which losing is impossible, winning is pointless. We cannot both take part in a genuine game and be certain of success, much as we would like to. It has been said that life is not a spectacle but a predicament; the truth really is that we need and like it that way, and even artificially turn spectacles into predicaments, with the help of bookmakers and others.

Ethical theories such as the one discussed may be combined with metaphysics to the effect that there are some general truths independently and reliably knowable, which yet at the same time account for all that is to be explained. If this were so, corrigibility would indeed be successfully eliminated, and intelligence or some kind of insight would suffice to free us from precariousness.

But if metaphysicians try to procure security for us by eliminating contingency, perhaps the motives of some empiricists are similar. For if we cannot totally eliminate contingency, the next best thing might perhaps be totally to eliminate necessary truth; and that is, notoriously, the empiricist’s manner of spending his time, devoting himself to giving psychologistic or linguistic accounts of apparent instances of necessity. The model of the world suggested by extreme metaphysics, a model in which contingency is universally and symmetrically diffused, is not as consoling as the necessarily ordered world of the metaphysician; but at least it is better than the compromise in which necessity and contingency are mixed up higgledy-piggledy without even clear and orderly lines of demarcation. The very pure empiricist offers us the security of knowing that everything is equally insecure. As Thurber says, there is no safety in numbers or in anything else. Metaphysicians try to tie knots in the strings, empiricists point to their looseness, Existentialists make a virtue (of necessity or otherwise) of it." [The Devil in Modern Philosophy]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*

Subject: Re: Spinoza Tue May 31, 2016 1:16 pm

I see things utterly differently than Spinoza; perhaps in reverse; if reality is not described as precarious, the description is obviously quite pointless. Reality is precarious, and the definition should reflect that, and offer no escape from it. Hence, my focus on values - these are the most precarious things in the world! And yet they sustain all actions - oh how precarious the very essence of action is - the certainty of change! No certainty whatsoever as to the outcome! Beautiful, this is Dionysian.

Furthermore, I define or understand freedom, personal freedom, as embodyig necessity. A weak man can never be free. A strong man who has no choice, according to himself, but to enact his total strength for the highest cause, is actually the freest; he is in the supremely privileged position of willing his values to be his values.

This is the 'mundane', i.e. non metaphysical affirmation, replacing the affirmation of the ER - no eternity is needed to make an act fully ontological and absolute. Just a strong goddamned will, a powerful heart, a 'man out of one piece'.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Tue May 31, 2016 1:28 pm

Haven't you just stated this?

Fixed wrote:: distortion due to perspective is not only necessary but the very substance of perception, and thus for all intents and purposes of the perceived, reality itself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How is this hard logic?

What does efficiency amount to, when it is the "very substance" of perception? Are you not indicating design?

Here's another one from you;

Fixed wrote:: the bottom line is, it seems to me, to adapt while maintaining the original structural integrity. I call this self-valuing (have been calling it that since may 2011) - it means to respond to the world in a way that sustains ones own highest values.
As the world changes, this requires that we too adapt; but not so as to become an entirely different entity; not to 'betray our soul' so to speak

But isnt this exactly what James has also been saying by his Rational Anentropic harmony?

Its like asking to assume someone born driving within the already dotted lines on the road, and all he has to do is keep his hand on the steering wheel and the foot on the brakes and "adapt" to the world - the oncoming cars and trucks, "adjusting" his steering a little to the left now, a little to the right now, sometimes overtaking another car [dominating], sometimes slowing down, sometimes parking, refueling…
Or someone not born already driving within the already dotted lines, but in deviation, simply has to steer back and get in lane to recover his self-integrity...

How is this idea of 'harmony' - not pure stagnant closed conatal epicurean hedonism?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*

Subject: Re: Spinoza Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:59 pm

Lyssa wrote:

Haven't you just stated this?

Fixed wrote:: distortion due to perspective is not only necessary but the very substance of perception, and thus for all intents and purposes of the perceived, reality itself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How is this hard logic?

The hardness of any logic is measured by its completeness.
Analytic philosophy is empty, its logic isnt really logic.

Continental philosophy has laboriously, over the ages, introduced a few Synthetic concepts, such as Eros, Power, Will, etc.

VO is a logic forced from such Synthetic concepts.
Its hardness is due to no Synthetic concept escaping or negating it.

Synthetic Philosophical concepts however rely primarily on Life, not on Text.

Hence, VO; it can only be understood by being applied; Synthesis of Thought and World; Mastery.

Quote :: What does efficiency amount to, when it is the "very substance" of perception? Are you not indicating design?

Certainly not. The high level of efficiency, the closeness to perfection of the physical universe is simply statistical necessity; perfection is the outcome of endless 'errors'; i.e. states that simply could not endure.

It is Synthetically Logical in an absolute sense that whatever survives the limitless onslaught of pure possibility becomes Necessity, and Law.

Quote :

Here's another one from you;

Fixed wrote:: the bottom line is, it seems to me, to adapt while maintaining the original structural integrity. I call this self-valuing (have been calling it that since may 2011) - it means to respond to the world in a way that sustains ones own highest values.
As the world changes, this requires that we too adapt; but not so as to become an entirely different entity; not to 'betray our soul' so to speak

But isnt this exactly what James has also been saying by his Rational Anentropic harmony?

No, because VO does not describe the integrity in terms of Affectance but of Values; widely different concepts, not really applicable to each other.

Affectance is analytical; Value is synthetic.

The analytic can not deal with value. It thinks value is a byproduct.

James and I worked parallel for a good year or two, he was constantly trying to convince me to make VO analytical; I haven't been able to make him see that this would rid it of all its substance, and thus of its logic.

VO gives Logic as its own substance, not as the ground to substance, as RM does.

Quote :: Its like asking to assume someone born driving within the already dotted lines on the road, and all he has to do is keep his hand on the steering wheel and the foot on the brakes and "adapt" to the world - the oncoming cars and trucks, "adjusting" his steering a little to the left now, a little to the right now, sometimes overtaking another car [dominating], sometimes slowing down, sometimes parking, refueling…
Or someone not born already driving within the already dotted lines, but in deviation, simply has to steer back and get in lane to recover his self-integrity...

How is this idea of 'harmony' - not pure stagnant closed conatal epicurean hedonism?

If it is Affectance, it is enclosed. But Value is a completely different issue.
A harmony of values can easily mean physical death. A structural integrity of Valuing can, and usually does mean an entity that makes its own road, and conditions the world thereby.

The basic difference between RM and VO is that RM takes conditions as primary to entity, whereas VO holds entity the primary, irreducible condition;
As I see it, every infinitesimal instance of Affectance must be self-valuing; i.e. it must be responsive to the outside, therefore be anchored to itself somehow on the inside;

this is the inscrutable mystery that we only attain to by reaching for the very heights of our complex human existence; at the heights of cosmic creation we can finally peer down into the nature of things.

From a stance of mediocrity or normalcy, or basic human being, Obviously there is no way to attain to understanding of the fundamentally powerful fact of existence.

VO is a philosophy that tests the limits of the mind. RM as well as other a-priori-objectivisms basically skip he entire step of 'knowing thyself' - they do not have the discipline of setting a context.

VO is a means to properly contextualize different concepts so as to integrate them.

No concept could ever replace or approach the significance of Value.
As obvious as that is, I seem to be the first one to have fully accepted it.
Of course, Nietzsche was the one who paved the way for it; those interested would do well to investigate the frequency of the occurrence of this concept versus that of Power.

For N, Power and Value were already the same. He did not have the means to make that perfectly clear, but the forged the metals.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:26 pm

Fixed wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Here's another one from you;

Fixed wrote:: the bottom line is, it seems to me, to adapt while maintaining the original structural integrity. I call this self-valuing (have been calling it that since may 2011) - it means to respond to the world in a way that sustains ones own highest values.
As the world changes, this requires that we too adapt; but not so as to become an entirely different entity; not to 'betray our soul' so to speak

But isnt this exactly what James has also been saying by his Rational Anentropic harmony?

No, because VO does not describe the integrity in terms of Affectance but of Values; widely different concepts, not really applicable to each other.

Affectance is analytical; Value is synthetic.

The analytic can not deal with value. It thinks value is a byproduct.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am speaking of the similarity.

It doesn't matter if Spinoza goes from many to one, or Leibniz goes from one to many,, like if James approaches it from a rational angle, and you approach it from a monadological angle, it still has the same flower for its aim, even if the approach be different.
While I get the difference of James positing value existing as a subset of conditions, and you positing conditions as subsets of valuing, the objective you both adhere to is anentropic harmony [not affectance].

To you both, deviation from "original structural integrity" is what tampers with efficient cohering. Happiness is the maximization of the innate entelechy… all the configurations that manage to become laws within an original design, a set of values…

You have stated yourself that the aim of VO is to make unconscious the love that Xt. made too conscious…

The blessed feeling, the kingdom within one, etc.
James and you couldn't be more in agreement on the decisive vision/aim.

Fixed wrote:: this is the inscrutable mystery that we only attain to by reaching for the very heights of our complex human existence; at the heights of cosmic creation we can finally peer down into the nature of things.

From a stance of mediocrity or normalcy, or basic human being, Obviously there is no way to attain to understanding of the fundamentally powerful fact of existence.

True; but its also true that any madman can claim no one else has access to the nuanced reality his passion enables him…, and this kind of unverifiable postmodern relativism was never Nietzsche's in any case.

The light sent from the stars reach late, what is said ahead today, can only be seen tomorrow,, but his point was they could be seen, and the light does reach. There is an objective empirical verification - the enhancement or the diminishment of life and the highest forms of life attained so far, would stand as the selective criterion.
By which token, VO - by already claiming diversity is a good and victory in itself, diminishes the selective pressure for creating those conditions whereby a man selects himself to attain to that elevated spirit of affirming diversity as a good…

By guaranteeing that every existence is already a victory, why would any man rise to want to affirm the world, when its already affirmed for him, when every plurality is already a value?

By this token, any idiot, any 'Jesus' can simply refute another and feel a 'master' or a 'proud spirit' or a 'model of health' by claiming, the other does not have the passion he does. Consequently, a view that sets Diversity not as a product of agonistic natural selection, but as a law already confirming it as valuable in itself, is ripe for dysgenics and is on the whole life-stunting.

VO spelled short is the "absolutization of relativism".

The end to the Philosopher's culmination into a law-giver, for VO says, "judge not", everthing is valuable in its own right...

Fixed wrote:: VO is a means to properly contextualize different concepts so as to integrate them.

The limbs, I remember...

The force of what Humanity can unleash when it comes together only from its strengths… is value dissolving into power, as opposed to N.'s power differentiating into value.

If a group of dadaists or minimalists each from their own excess, their 'artistic genius', collaborated together to found a successful gallery or a trend-setting style of art, a positive successful outcome automatically becomes proof of highest value. Anything can parade as art when it can flash power.
The above is the opposite of what N. intended. That each individual participating in the same arena of an art competition, for example, a dadaist and a minimalist, etc. would have the pathos of value-distance exposed by their WTP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :: "Sadness weaken one’s power to exist, whereas actions, active affections and joy make one more powerful, having more essence, more conatus. There are metaphysical and logials correspondences between essentia, conatus, potentia, vita (life), appetitus (man’s essence), virtus (understood in the Machiavellian sense of manly power, not humble virtue) in Spinoza’s system. What should be rememberd is that power, desire and essence are closely related in Spinoza."

Quote :: "A body of any kind is defined by the possible relation into which it may enter. This is its power of acting. If the bodies agree " in nature" it is a joyful passive affection that increases the bodies’ power to act. If not, sadness occur and either body or both may be decompose the relationship , the new "body".

The question arises immediately: How can we get as many active affections and as little passive ones as possible ? How do we experience as much (self-caused) joy as possible?"

Xt. was that gathering of all the human goodness from everywhere and anywhere under the banner of 'judge not'…, and what did it produce in the name of love and at what cost?

Fixed wrote:: No concept could ever replace or approach the significance of Value.

WTP precedes value… forever and ever..
Its just how it is.

Fixed wrote:: As obvious as that is, I seem to be the first one to have fully accepted it.

Its been accepted since Plotinus.

When you conclude Intelligent design in the con-sequential manner, that because intelligence evolved in the universe, the universe is intelligent, you show me why it is only you who is the first one to accept it in contemporary times.

No one would want to be the one to make such a blunder.

Fixed wrote:: For N, Power and Value were already the same. He did not have the means to make that perfectly clear, but the forged the metals.

You are a Liar.

Anyone is free to read him and check the Value Ontology thread here, or the Performance Ontology thread on ILP and come to their own conclusion.

N. was totally against any dishonest insertion of any subjectivity or value into the universe. Wherever power and value have been discussed, one will notice his intention of precisely Not collapsing the two together -

Some appetizers:

Nietzsche wrote:: "The whole history of a ‘thing’, an organ, a tradition can to this extent be a continuous chain of signs, continually revealing new interpretations and adaptations, the causes of which need not be connected even amongst themselves, but rather sometimes just follow and replace one another at random... The form is fluid, the ‘meaning’ [Sinn] even more so." [JW, 2.12]

- no valuing.

Nietzsche wrote:: """Attraction" and "repulsion" in a purely mechanistic sense are complete fictions: a word. We cannot think of an attraction divorced from an intention.- The will to take possession of a thing or to defend oneself against it and repel it - that, we "understand": that would be an interpretation of which we could make use."[WTP, 627]

To retrogress this as a value-selfing to make an ontological case for a Kabalistic/Plotinian "Intelligent Mind" or "Intelligent Design" is simply duplicitous.

All is valuable is a moral religion.
All is will-to-power is an amoral philosophy.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:48 pm

Quote :: VO says, "judge not", everthing is valuable in its own right...

Prrrfl.

VO says the precise opposite. We can not exist wihtout judging.

Too bad you let the mentally handicapped daylaborer Satyr rule over your intellect.... it's such a perversity to see you reduced to a moron whenever I stop protecting him.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:49 pm

We had a nice stretch again. See you in a couple of months maybe, when you recover your intelligence.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:53 pm

Fabulous exit... so much drama.

Iak recedes into the shadows... his gestures were not enough to impress, not flamboyant, not extreme, not impressive enough, for such numb minds.
The magic spells had failed. He had failed Abraham.
He had been un-covered.
Time to heal, come up with a new plan, settle for the men-children clamouring to be his children.
Soon a clever plan will be concocted, to taunt, from afar... to draw them back, to make them look his way, when the men-children bored him, once more, and they were no longer enough for his fragile ego, and slavish spirit.
He had failed his God of nil, dressed in positivist drab, drag-queen, paraphernalia.
They could not accepted his genius, he the true heir of the commander.
Nobody gets it... nobody understands.
It is simple, but complex, you must feel it, heart it, accept it into your spirit, to see the magic.
Nobody could appreciate the magician - his offering not for this age.
He would have to return with new ways, new words, new tricks.
He will make them see his brilliance.
Not even the commander appreciated him... thought of him another Christian, a Jew.
Not even he saw who and what he truly was.

Maybe a new word, to baptize his new God, rename him for the children - freshen up the image, repackage recycled garbage, for a new generation of idiots.

One having no father, the other no sons, they were bromancers, dancers, prancers., looking to the other for what they could not find in self.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:58 pm

A nihilist may flip meanings to opposites easily, whenever it wants. To declare something exists, they may say it exists in their mind or that it exists out in the world. An "idea" becomes both a physical manifestation/interaction and one that is completely separate from the world - Descartes' "idea".

It's all in your head.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:01 pm

Black Panther wrote:: We had a nice stretch again. See you in a couple of months maybe, when you recover your intelligence.

Sure, you wont stay? Would love to have you for dinner…

When a tin-man discovers he is on some path he calls the art of living, but not yet upto the (he)art of loving in the grand style he encounters in someone, he does what is proper - throws a fit of smoke and mirrors to excuse himself as acknowledgement of the height he is yet to ascend.

It was well-received.

cheers dearest.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:31 pm

Slaughtz wrote:: A nihilist may flip meanings to opposites easily, whenever it wants. To declare something exists, they may say it exists in their mind or that it exists out in the world. An "idea" becomes both a physical manifestation/interaction and one that is completely separate from the world - Descartes' "idea".

It's all in your head.

You just don't get it Slaughtz, Value Ontology is magic. It is here, there everywhere - quicksilver, it is and it is not.
It can be anything, at any time, for any one...it is perspectivism pushed to its limit, its absolute.
Not even he can explain it, like Jesus, you have to let him into your heart for him to make sense.
He refuses to because that would limit the way some other chooses to accept the "philosophy".
it is meant to seduce, all, be universal.

It is substance, but not exactly, like love, but that word is taken, like will, but let us distance ourselves from that word because value encompasses and surpasses it.... it is "type" but that would be too simple for such a mystical word.
The word gathers the worthy, the chosen, the clan.
Each understanding it in his/her own way.

It is value-selfing, when you like him, and not that, when you criticize.
It's all about you, the self, see.
If you have the right stuff... like Muslims who accuse those that reject Allah of having no soul, deserving not the glory of eternal life.
You have to feeeel it in your heart, surrender to it, like the bitches he prefers.
The more positive your attitude the closer you get - negativity distances value from you.
Accept it, and it makes sense, it is clear, reject it and you are unworthy, you just cannot understand.
It's a mind-trap.

It's this and its that, depending on the attack, the motive.

If this exposes the mind, then it is not this, it is that again.
It is an idea before its time - to be fully understood hundreds of years from now, when greater minds evolve - then his genius will be fully appreciated.
it is power but also vulnerability, love but also hate...it is whatever self it is, at any given time - self-valuing.
It is whatever self says it is.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:51 pm

If you deny the God, you are unworthy, not ready, not adequate, for the reception of the gift.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:54 pm

Black Panther wrote:

Quote :: VO says, "judge not", everthing is valuable in its own right...

Prrrfl.

VO says the precise opposite. We can not exist wihtout judging.

Can the world exist without judging? Or is there some grand judge watching over all reality? A secular Berkeley, where all are their own God and the prophet will guide their judgment. If not willingly, then perhaps through emotional manipulation and appeal - gossip, posturing and vanity.

Which came first: the meme or the gene? Chicken or the egg?

Did the chicken get hit with radioactive material and suddenly begin laying eggs? Falling from grace, mistakes like we are from God or Adam/Eve. Losing purity through sinful radioactive sludge.
Or did the egg, in the more vulnerable state, mutate and become a mutated creature? ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

Does a human invent new memes without reference to any other or do they mutate/combine some memes with other memes?

Is denying reality - not accepting it as inevitable and static - a means to an end or an end in itself?

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:55 pm

I'm just not worthy of His grace.

But it is all my choice - I could have opened up and saw its magic. Why would I ruin such an opportunity?

Obviously heretical.

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:16 pm

I thought I would skip repeating myself, but for the record… again...

Black Panther wrote:

Quote :: VO says, "judge not", everthing is valuable in its own right...

Prrrfl.

VO says the precise opposite. We can not exist wihtout judging.

1.

FC wrote:: "The point is that there is always a victor among the drives. The victor is not permanent and certainly not a-priori in the Kantian sense. But it is rather a logical causal proposition. If there is no victor, then there is no hierarchy, then there is no form, then there is no being."

But because of relative persistence, Anything could be said to be a victor at some point; any arrangement could be a victory in itself simply for holding itself together and this says nothing. Sure there is conatal selection at the local level, cohering into an entity, but Not every ordering is a 'positive' order. If bacteria have persisted more than others, does it mean their self-valuing is the highest? and tied to what ideal? - persisting for persisting's sake?!

This is where point 2. comes in, where be…ing is already declared a victory:

2.

FC wrote:: "Objectivity is an accomplishment - a form of focus. It is never a given standard from which the world is poured into 'the honest observer' who has 'cleaned his temple to receive' --- unless we regard this cleaning the temple as a preparing the temple, in which case, it is exactly that -- if the mind is prepared for a certain type of truth-value, it is likely to be flooded by it. So my perimeter of truth value is simply my self-valuing -- I can only decide if something is positively true or not if I relate to it strongly. This is 'unfortunately' the truth of my truthfulness - the most truthful thing I can do is accept and affirm this.And if I do, I already know that whatever it is that is perceived to be true is so in correspondence with my overall value-grid, with my world-model, which I accept to have 'created' by being an entity with a consciousness of itself as standing within a greater half-known. I understand that this entity has to be, in the final instance, the criterium. This is my ultimate 'faith' (GS) - it is the least intrusive and selective faith that I can muster - the faith in my own positive existence as standard. If I lose this faith, I lose sight of my own role in my judgments, and the question of knowledge becomes an arbitrary broken thing on the side of the road."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If every potential-possibility is already valuable, and every being already a victory, just for be…ing, then anything and everything becomes valuable. The conception of value becomes meaningless.

Jesus had called for believers, and by your own admission, VOt is just a tool to transplant that voice from within than without, whereby the believers would come to recognize each other and come together not by a pope or a dogma or a scripture, but simply having prevailed on their terms.
No matter the criterion of e-valuating those terms of existence. "Judge not, for diversity in itself is already valuable"...

And more recently, was the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from you: Creativity = Courage.
In other words, creative-spirits coming together is already life-enhancing; to ask for a value-standard to guage creativity is impossible, and even oppressive, for everything must simply be judged in its own light and right; its being such and such is already invaluable in itself - the sanctity of a monadological plurality.
By this token, any grp. of insane scientists creating from 'their' excess that cannot be judged from any objective view point, or any grp. of those black square minimalist artists or latrine-installation geniuses who can only be judged in their own light… would end up promoting nihilistic anarchy than health, for when everything is to be judged only in its own light, then all is valuable and that is a religion.

Try to calmly take in the implications without feeling threatened, of coming apart - if you can afford. But I doubt it.
Too bad, your spirit lacks the courage for mental sincerity and overall hygiene, mindf---ed as it, by jesus and plotinus and a host of others.

As regards Satyr, whatever be his approach to philosophy, he is someone who started from scratch,, not like you - merely offering a hermeneutical exegesis for a pre-existing structure, the tree of life, simply elaborating and joining the dots together and calling it VO.

And you laugh at the world for being owned by dictionary words - imposed values?

I laugh at you, sweets. You do need a dictionary, to first understand what past means and then starting from scratch means...

*scratch, scratch.. meow pussy

later.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*

Subject: Re: Spinoza Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:40 pm

Lyssa wrote:: what ideal? - persisting for persisting's sake?!

Making the means the end. If you cannot know the end, then invent some end and declare those who fail in pursuing it as "evil". Those who still use the means are then "evil", for they are ignoring the answer you've provided by not accepting it. They continue to use the means as if the end were not already found out.

Dismember or mutilate your arm if you do not know what it is for.

If you do not know what your imagination is for, then believing in and justifying imagination itself becomes the goal.

Showing weakness, showing ignorance, is a threat of death. The Jewish death - the considerstion that they might not be deserving of life, as entertained by other people. The best way to tell a lie is to believe it yourself.

Create a knowledge which no other can acquire access to - one which is outside reality itself, such as their gods, and declare that you have seen him and are his spokesman. Who would risk killing the hand/mouth of their Gods? It would certainly anger them if you were wrong in your judgment that they could not be their will manifest.

With multiple Gods, there were always disagreements in ends, making the means justified as for the will of any combination of God(desse)s. With One God, it became for One end and One goal, which if you failed to move toward, would be evil. One God demands uniformity, consistency by all believers. The means are no longer justified but in the pursuit of this One God, and inconsistencies are blasphemies. The means (reason, passion, etc.) are sinful, for they acknowledge a self, an idol which you'd abandon if you had faith in Him.

The "primitive" man seeks to change himself (including his beliefs) to match/adapt to the world. He takes Truth and uses it to cut away at himself. The Jew does the opposite. He cuts at reality (or the perception of reality) itself so that he does not get cut.